Image Quality and Settings

In retrospect, I probably should have just skipped the Ultra quality setting and opted for some form of custom settings. The texture data just overwhelms most GPUs at Ultra, and even High still struggles in many cases. Even more problematic is that there are only three texturing options: Low, High, and Ultra.

I also want to point you to NVIDIA's Assassin's Creed: Unity Graphics and Performance Guide, because if you're wanting a better look at what some of the graphics options really mean in terms of quality that article has everything you need to know. One item particularly worth noting is that NVIDIA recommends 2GB cards use Low textures, 3GB cards can do High, and Ultra is for 4GB cards (or maybe 6GB/8GB cards).

Anyway, here's a quick look at what the various presets do for quality. Let me start with a table showing what specific settings are applied for each of the presets. Again, the NVIDIA page linked above has a good explanation for what each of the settings does, and more importantly it has image sliders to let you do A/B comparisons for each setting. (Disregard their AA images, though, as it looks like they used 2560x1440 and shrunk them to 1080p – oops.)

Assassin's Creed: Unity Image Quality Presets
  Low Medium High Very High Ultra
Environmental Low Medium High Very High Ultra
Texture Low High High Ultra Ultra
Shadow Low Low High High Soft (PCSS)
Ambient Occlusion Off SSAO SSAO HBAO+ HBAO+
Anti-Aliasing Off FXAA 2xMSAA 2xMSAA 4xMSAA
Bloom Off On On On On
 

The main things to note is that there's a rather noticeable difference between Low and High texture quality, but not so much from High to Ultra. Environmental quality has a generally minor effect on the appearance of the game, especially at everything above Medium (though there are a few areas that are exceptions to this statement). The difference between Low and High shadows is also quite small, but the Soft Shadows implement PCSS (Percentage Closer Soft Shadows), which do look quite nice while also causing a moderate performance hit.

Anti-aliasing has a ton of settings, but the most useful are generally the MSAA options; those are also the most demanding. FXAA is as usual nearly "free" to enable and can help remove jaggies along with some other image details, which might be the best solution. TXAA performance is pretty similar to 4xMSAA I think, which means it's mostly for high-end rigs. Bloom is pretty much always on except at the lowest setting. Finally, ambient occlusion has two options along with off: SSAO or HBAO+. NVIDIA developed HBAO+ as a better version of AO, and in general I think they're right. It's also supposed to be faster than SSAO, at least on NVIDIA GPUs, so if you have NVIDIA hardware you'll probably want to enable that.

Looking at the presets, the difference between Ultra and Very High is visible in the right areas (e.g. placese with shadows), but they're overall pretty similar. There's a more noticeable drop from Very High to High, mostly with the change in textures, and at least for our test images the Medium and High settings look almost the same.

There are a few last items to note on benchmarking, just by way of reference. First, Assassin's Creed: Unity uses "dynamic" day/night cycles. They're not really dynamic, but Ubisoft has four preset times: morning, noon, dusk, and night. The reason this is important is that benchmarking the same sequence at different times of day can result in quite different results. There's also "dynamic" weather (or at least clouds) that can throw things off. Second, if you change certain image quality settings (which I'll get to next), specifically Texture Quality, you have to restart the game for the changes to take effect. Last, the game has dynamic crowds, which means the runs aren't fully deterministic, but in repeat testing the variance is generally less than 3% and closer to 1%.

The good news is that when you load up the game is always at the morning time slot, so basically you have to exit and reload between every setting change. Yes, it's quite tedious if you're benchmarking a dozen or so GPUs….

Test System and Benchmarks Closing Thoughts
Comments Locked

122 Comments

View All Comments

  • JarredWalton - Thursday, November 20, 2014 - link

    If I had an FX rig, you can be sure I'd test at least one or two GPUs on it to see how it compares, but sadly I don't.
  • chizow - Thursday, November 20, 2014 - link

    I thought that was what the i3 simulation was meant to mimic? ;)
  • Morawka - Thursday, November 20, 2014 - link

    we need those big wide nvidia cards to come back. 512bit bus or even a 1024bit bus. My GTX 980 only chokes when i try to enable any form of AA on FC4 and AC: Unity. As long as AA is set to None or 2x MSAA, the games fun at 60FPS.
  • Notmyusualid - Thursday, November 20, 2014 - link

    Great to see some mobile GPU numbers in there.

    Allows the rest of us to know what to expect from a title...

    Thanks.
  • eanazag - Thursday, November 20, 2014 - link

    The game is a hardware thrasher from the numbers. I can understand seeing PC titles playing with low frame rates, but there's a problem if the consoles can't get the game over 30 FPS. That is a design failure since you can't upgrade consoles.
  • YazX_ - Thursday, November 20, 2014 - link

    PCSS kills performance, im running the game everything on Ultra except PCSS is set to High with FXAA at WQHD (2560 x 1440) and getting 55 FPS avg with 970 GTX (1525/8Ghz), min FPS is like 40.

    switching to 2xMSAA with MFAA enabled gets me around 45 FPS avg and 30 Min, so i wonder how 970 SLI in your benches couldnt sustain 60 FPS on WQHD?!
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, November 20, 2014 - link

    Ultra is 4xMSAA with PCSS. You had a 10FPS drop just enabling 2xMSAA, and 4xMSAA would take another 10 or so FPS off, with PCSS accounting for an additional 10 (give or take).
  • Carfax - Thursday, November 20, 2014 - link

    The main reason for the low performance is the use of MSAA. MSAA in this engine has a massive performance hit as the engine uses deferred rendering . Running the game on ultra settings with FXAA instead of MSAA would net you over 10 FPS easily.
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, November 20, 2014 - link

    Umm... MSAA on many games tends to exact a fairly decent performance hit, and the more complex the game the bigger the hit. FXAA is basically a 3% hit (vs. no AA) by comparison so yes it would be much faster.
  • Carfax - Thursday, November 20, 2014 - link

    Exactly, so posting benchmarks of the game running at MSAA 4x isn't exactly an accurate representative of the kind of performance you can get out of the game, and arguably isn't even worth the massive performance hit as it just gives you a very slight IQ boost over FXAA. On my own machine, I'm playing at 1440p maxed settings with FXAA and I'm seeing 60 FPS on a regular basis with V-sync on. With V-sync off, I'm getting into the 70s..

    This is on a Gigabyte G1 GTX 970 SLI rig with a 4930K @ 4.3ghz driving them..

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now